Talk:inhibiting hormone

RFD
SOP; any hormone that inhibits. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Delete - See under "intracellular digestion" above. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does say a hormone that inhibits another hormone, so a hormone that inhibits something else would not be an inhibiting hormone. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A cursory glance through the medical literature is unhelpful, because it seems to be underused. If it passes RFD, it'll likely fail RFV. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See: WT:RFV. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything on the first page of Google Scholar results seem to support the definition given, although I would hesitate to extrapolate from that that it is never used in any other context. Spinning Spark  18:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to focus more on the grammar, not the biochemistry, to determine lexicographic includability.
 * This pair of words seems to often occur with hormone functioning as the object of inhibiting functioning as a verb. There are many instances of the words appearing as part of numerous noun-phrase constructions of the general form X-inhibiting factor. This "term" may mostly be an uncommonly used hypernym for all of these constructions or some subset of them. It may also occur as a short form referring to one particular X-inhibiting hormone where the full term appeared earlier in the document. Among the many words that can appear in the X slot are molt (a bodily process, not a hormone), release (a process, not a hormone), melanocyte (a cell, not a hormone). Thus, there seems to be a prima facie case against the definition, which can be refuted by evidence showing that it is used in other ways with the possibly non-SoP definition given. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A sufficiently humble lexicographer might also note that, among OneLook references, none has a full entry for this, one medical dictionary having a redirect to hormone. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a semantic sum of parts. I don't believe the thing inhibited can only be another hormone; the phrase "molt-inhibiting hormone" suggests otherwise. As an auxiliary indicator, the entry has been created by known for shoddy entries. As a second auxiliary indicator,  finds only one dictionary; the entry of the single dictionary reads "See hormone". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV
I'm not seeing anything that matches the current definition. See also: WT:RFD. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some citations that seem to work, based on a search using Somatostatin:
 * see page 678
 * 
 * 
 * 

That said, this seems to be SOP to me. If tomorrow, someone comes up with a hormone that inhibits X (where X is not a hormone), I think it would be natural to also call that an inhibiting hormone. --BB12 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfD discussion contains examples that show not only hormones, but bodily processes (which may or may not be hormone-controlled), cells, etc can be inhibited.
 * I think that valid citations for this should not be of the use of X-inhibiting + hormone. I would argue that such uses are prima facie evidence that inhibiting hormone is not a set phrase, contradicting one argument for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed. inhibiting hormone failed RFD. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)